Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 7:15:54
In reply to Lou's reply-defamation per se - I'm not sure, Lou. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 1:35:26
> Lou, your above average intelligence is showing again.
>
> :-)
>
> I must say that your writings are more eloquent and cogent lately.
>
> You obviously have studied some law.
>
> Slander and libel are not easy to prove if one has offered an opinion rather than portrayed a statement as being fact. And, of course, any such statement must be proved false. Rightly or wrongly, I think your writings about your receiving divine revelations would make it particularly difficult for you to prove any falsehood in statements that call into question the status of your mental health.
>
> I cannot determine whether or not you have a diagnosable mental illness. I am not trained to do this. However, I am often concerned about your mental health.
>
> Regarding antisemitism and bigotry, I don't think you can construct a model whereby any comment suggesting that you are mentally ill is de facto an act of antisemitism. This is another issue that I believe would act as an obstacle to your winning any law suits.
>
> I know that people who are intent on injuring Jews can be very clever with words. Such words can influence the beliefs and behaviors of others. Being Jewish myself, I am glad that there are people who stand as sentinels to guard against the emergence and persistence of antisemitism. There are still pockets of antisemitism in the US, such that I would fear for my safety were I to find myself surrounded by such hatred.
>
> I am concerned that your ceaseless attempts to find antisemitism where it may not exist might actually have the unintended and undesirable effect of arousing antisemitic feelings.
>
>
> - Scott
>Scott
You wrote the above,
Be advised that I am not in any litigation with anyone concerning a lawsuit about defamtion.
BUt note that saying what defames someone is an opinion and not fact is not always a defense in defamation. For instance, if one posted here, [...I think so and so is a pedophil, the aspect of the preface to the defamtion being that it is an opinion I do not think will be a defence. The same with saying that they think someone has a mental illness, or a sexually transmitted disease.
The question as to if someone has revelation from the God that they give service and worship to is a justification for them to claim that the person has a mental illness is depreciating the character and could be causing emotional pain to the person accused of being mentally ill. And if the claim is done deliberatly, that is even a greatr liable. And if it done maliciously, then that is even a more hatefull attempt to defame.
The aspect of looking for antisemitism is simply a lie. The antisemitism here is promuilgated by the fact that antisemitic statements are allowed toi stand. That means according to the rule-drafter here that what stands could be considerd to be supportive and going even further than that, the rule-drasfter here states that be doing uch, he will be doing what will be goo for this communnity as whole. So hatred toward the Jews will be good for tghis communit as a whole. Bur it is much more than that. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to me can not be posted by me here. This could be classified as what is known as {against Judaism} here. To see this post one can go to the search at the bottom of this page and put in:
[schleprock, Hello from 2012] {I am prohibited from posting a link here by Mr Hsiung that would bring that post up}.
Now the foundation of Christiandom that states that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children that were murdered by Jew-haters from an era of time that I am also prohibited by Mr Hsiung from postig about here, are said here to not being to have Etyernal Life or forgivnesss from God because they were Jewish children that had atrocities commited against them and were murdered and that the mureres who accepted Jesus have forgivness and Eternal Life. Then the poster states that the bible says that. Really? I have been revealed otherwise but I am prohibited by Mr Hsiung from posting what could show that the bible says differently by the nature of other prohibitions to me here by Mr Hsiung.
Now lets look at this post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
In that post, the establishment for hatred toward the Jews is laid here. The rule-drfter had a rule in place before this post that stated not to post links to where ther is antisemitic content in it. Then here, the rule-drafter states that {he has been thinking} whatever that could mean. But he did not apply his own rule to this post. Nor is there any reply to me to my requests to him to have dialog with him. That indifference has great significance here to the Jews.
Now going on, the rule drafter or someone that has his pasword, deleted the original post that had the link to antisemitic content. This is significant here. The poster of the original link that created the rule to not post links to antisemitic content had originally posted antisemitic content directly to me and the rule drafter would not highlite {that particular} statement as being uncivil. So it could be an establishment here that antisemitic statements are supportive. And that I am what the poster claimed which was defamatory and came from historical antisemitism that I am prohibited from posting here by Mr Hsiung. And for you to find that post, I am prohibited also from posting the link to it here by Mr Hsiung's prohibition to me.
Now it is plainly visible in the post here in the link and I am not looking for it. I am niot looking for Mr Hsiung to posdt to me his prohibitions caliming that if I post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me that I will beguilty of not being in civic harmoiny here. That statement also can be (redacted by respondent) as in the historicsl record that I am prohibited from posting here by Mr Hsiung.
Now antisemitism is defined as hatred toward the Jews. But it is much more than this. The charge of being mentally ill was made against Jesus of the bible that the Christians use. The courts understand slander of this manner more than you may think. And the truth of the sjander may not be a defence for what constitutes one being mentally ill? If revelation from God means one is mentally ill, then this Jesus was mentall ill. And then so were the Jews in their scriptures that had revelation from God. And then all the Islamic people and Hindus an others that have faith in God and have reveltion are also mentally ill. The judge might have had revelation from God. The jurors may have had revelation from God. There may be a psychiatrist that had revelation from God and testify that he is not mentally ill. You see how lableing someone mentall ill becuase they receive revelation from God could fall to deaf ears? Do you see how that lale could be defamatory to a Jew or others?
But ZMr Hsiung is allowing it here to be promulgated that others lable me as mentally ill. That is (redacted by respondent).
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1029828
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20121018/msgs/1030040.html